USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Just so you have the information; anyone under 18 can not be labeled as a sociopath. This only applies once they turn 18.
11 year old charged with murder. WTF!
- Thread starter apple0154
- Start date
Just so you have the information; anyone under 18 can not be labeled as a sociopath. This only applies once they turn 18.
In Arizona a child cannot be deemed a sociopath for legal reasons? Is that the same in every state? In WA a child in foster care was labeled sociopath and removed from her foster home after animal mutilations were discovered-now that may have just been for clinical purposes and not for legal ones?
apple0154
MEOW
Maturity has everything to do with it. All our laws are based on maturity. That's what legal age is all about.
Again, regarding sex, it was used as an example to show the absurdity of charging a child as an adult. By suggesting that if an 11 year old is adult capable of committing murder then surely they are adult capable of consenting to sex was to show the lunacy of the first.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
As far as I know, the sociopath "label" can not be used to define anyone younger then 18. Until the age of 18, it's usually referred to as a "personality disorder".
And I worked with a lot of youth that probably fit the sociopath label; but it couldn't be applied.
This is a good resource for understanding.
I tried to find out if that is specific to AZ-could not find anything~
apple0154
MEOW
Most interesting article! I'd swear the following was written specifically concerning certain members of this board.
(Excerpt) ALIENATED SOCIOPATHS…..have a cold, callous attitude toward human suffering or any social problem in the society they live in. They just don't care because it's outside their range of empathy. Most will believe they are justified in this because they feel they were cheated in some way themselves by society, and a few will be more than happy to rant and rave about it to anyone who listens. They are chronic complainers, and underneath it all, they would like to see nothing better than all of society destroyed.(End)
"have a cold, callous attitude toward human suffering or any social problem in the society they live in. They just don't care because it's outside their range of empathy."-----> Why should I pay taxes to help others? If they were suffering they would get a job. They're just lazy!
"Most will believe they are justified in this because they feel they were cheated in some way themselves by society"------>I struggled and subsisted on noodles so i could put myself through school. No one gave me anything.
"and a few will be more than happy to rant and rave about it to anyone who listens"-----> I think their posts are sufficient evidence of that.
"They are chronic complainers, and underneath it all, they would like to see nothing better than all of society destroyed"----->Stop the stimulus. Let the economy flounder and if a world-wide depression occurs, so be it.
That you would take an actual psychopathy and apply it to an ideological/ geopolitical view of government demonstrates the difference between addlepated liberals and logical thinking conservatives~
run away from your vote
obstruct a vote
kill unborn babies
etc, etc, etc.
grow up and debate apple-this was actually a serious topic-you're being all troll like.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
If the 6-year old had been armed, too, as is every American's right - he could have defended himself. Clearly the answer is more guns.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I recognized your condition earlier; but didn't want to say anything and send you over the edge.
apple0154
MEOW
"an ideological/ geopolitical view of government"
Not just a view of government but support and a vote for a government that implements policies that affect people; other human beings, other human beings who are ill and poor.
Governments are people and if a person treated another individual the same way certain governments treat people they would be considered "alienated sociopaths". It follows if an individual believes in the way the people in government treat others to the point the individual supports the people in government it's logical to conclude the individual must think the same way. What other rational conclusion can one draw?
This is hardly troll-like. It is what lies at the very base of this thread. Is it not about the way government (people) treat others (an 11 year old)?
You've read the posts over time, the continual tearing down of the needy or how they really aren't all that needy. The comments from posters on how they struggled to get ahead and how others need to apply themselves.
Check the definition of ALIENATED SOCIOPATHS I posted in msg. 26 and then read a few posts by some of our "friends". It won't be difficult to see the similarities.
apple0154
MEOW
Thank-you for the valuable input.
Oh bull fing shit! Liberal's stand for the killing of 50 million babies...that's pretty damned psychopathic! See how this argument can run?
Yep! Both paradigms are essentially false flags with respect to the way the partisanship is used to both deflect and hide atlerior motives. They feign disunity to stoke the partisan sheep into a blaze. Meanwhile, they plot to decieve the populce.
apple0154
MEOW
I see, indeed! Recall one of the characteristics, namely: "have a cold, callous attitude toward human suffering or any social problem in the society they live in. They just don't care because it's outside their range of empathy."
You've just shown a fine example not only of the disregard some folks have for other individuals but their insistence those individuals needlessly suffer by claiming a mass of human DNA constitutes a human being and attempting to deny the individual's right to have it removed from their body.
Unfortunately, that's just the beginning. Their attitude/belief has, in the past and would again, result in a wide spread social problem. That being the large number of young women and the resultant undesired children thrown into poverty. History is replete with examples of "unwed mothers" and "illegitimate children" and the hell that was their life. Society may have changed the definition to be politically correct (unwed mothers = single mothers, illegitimate children =
It goes beyond a cold, callous attitude and a lack of empathy. It involves making a choice for individuals and then expecting them to deal with the choice that was made by others and we know the overwhelming outcome. While others are continuing their education or advancing their career the unwed mother and illegitimate child....oops, single mom and child...are struggling with poverty.
A while back when discussing social programs for single moms one poster asked why he should be responsible for someone elses child.
That's the strange thing about all this. It seems a pregnancy is everyone's business but when it comes to dealing with the resultant single mom and child it's nobody's responsibility but their own.
I think that's one of the main differences between Liberals and Conservatives. While both forms of government desire to implement rules and regulations a Liberal government is more apt to assist people affected by change whereas Conservatives tend to take the position "just deal with it".
In any case, ID, rather than label the followers of a political party perhaps we can agree that one specific party does exhibit the general characteristics to a much greater degree.
In any case, ID, rather than label the followers of a political party perhaps we can agree that one specific party does exhibit the general characteristics to a much greater degree.
I agree that liberal inanity is perfectly reflected in your lack of logical discourse~
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
Spelling: F
Moonbattery: A+
apple0154
MEOW
Talking about logical discourse I wrote in msg #32,
So, I put it to you again. What other rational conclusion can one draw? Going on the reasonable assumption people vote for political parties/politicians who hold beliefs similar to their own and the holding of such beliefs is characteristic of a disorder then what rational conclusion can we draw other than it's highly likely the people who vote for such politicians suffer from that specific disorder?
Let's recap. As I noted in msg #26 from the article you linked to,
Let's look at the Republican Party and it's supporters.
1. "have a cold, callous attitude toward human suffering or any social problem in the society they live in. They just don't care because it's outside their range of empathy"
It is the Republican Party who insists on cutting social programs while the Democratic Party strongly resists such actions.
2. "Most will believe they are justified in this because they feel they were cheated in some way themselves by society, and a few will be more than happy to rant and rave about it to anyone who listens."
There is no lack of Republican Party members telling us how they struggled to get where they are, whether it concerned growing up in a single parent home or washing a barroom floor, just as there are Republican folks here who tell us of their struggles trying to obtain an education while subsisting on noodles. The message being they weren't offered a helping hand.
3. "They are chronic complainers, and underneath it all, they would like to see nothing better than all of society destroyed."
Not only has the Republican Party been told, over and over, default on the debt will lead to world-wide turmoil but dragging the talks too close to the deadline will spook investors, however, we see the same "demand social programs be cut and don't back down, regardless of the consequences" attitude from Republican supporters on the board.
There is nothing inane about attempting to discuss what is a serious problem.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I have to admit that while I didn't think you could ever reach a new level of circular thinking, you have impressed me and it is now obvious that you're insane.
It's always cool to see an old thread like this.